On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 2:50 PM Jim Oberholtzer
<midrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All true, but consider that ACS can navigate the IFS much easier and when
the file is opened for inspection, you can save it locally. Translation
done for you. Now you can use whatever tool makes you happy to review the
contents.
First, "easier" is subjective. There is no question ACS is *slower*
than WRKLNK in terms of response time. Not saying it's unbearably
slow, but it is objectively slower.
Second, it looks like ACS *must* download the file locally in order
for it to be inspected. (You don't have to explicitly download it; it
goes ahead and does that automatically when you ask to view it.) That
is also objectively slower than opening in DSPF.
I was expecting a double-click on the file in ACS to open it, but as
far as I can tell, the second click does nothing. I had to use a menu
option to view it. (You can potentially save yourself one click if you
do a right-click, which both selects a file and opens the action menu
for that file.)
Finally, translation is apparently only done for you if you
specifically ask for it (instead of "View" use "View..." and check the
"View as UTF-8 text file" box; and since that is the *only* option
available in "View...", one wonders why they didn't just save you two
clicks/keystrokes by dispensing with the dialog and labeling the
action "View as UTF-8" instead). This is also objectively less
automatic than DSPF. It is also more confusing for people who don't
know what UTF-8 is or why they'd want to view as UTF-8. DSPF Just
Works. (In fact, it works so well that many people don't realize that
they are sometimes looking at underlying EBCDIC data and sometimes
looking at underlying ASCII data when using DSPF.)
Using ACS will be the better option for some people. It does have some
advantages over the green-screen interface. Response time and
automatic translation are not among them.
Note that I am using version 1.1.8.8. Perhaps there have been UI
improvements since then.
John Y.
midrange.com
